what's good and bad about feminism?
November 11, 2023 3:40 PM Subscribe
What are the good things that you like about feminism? What has been your positive experience from it? And on the flip side, what is something bad/problematic about it that you've seen? And what was your negative experience of it? Also, what double standards do you think exist in relation to this?
Recently had some discussions with cis-heterosexual men about what they think about feminism and I find that I need better language and perhaps more insights as to how to address some of what they're saying, like:
- how feminism led to a culture of women saying they don't need men for anything and that all men are useless and only to be used for their money
- how it led to men hating women (because of the idea that feminism = women hate men)
- how what most women fail to understand is that men are wired differently, and that you can't want to claim to not need a man for anything and then expect a traditional relationship
- "If you even approach a woman these days or even just do something like look in their direction, you get labelled as a creep"
- there's a dark side to feminism
- what about women hating other women
I am a feminist and I have already explained the fight for equal rights (socially, politically, economically, etc). And when it comes to dating stuff and relationships, I also emphasise about establishing and respecting boundaries.
But sometimes when I get responses like the above I want to be able to answer in a calm and nuanced way so I'm hoping the hivemind can help.
(PS. Not looking to be divisive here, just really genuinely want enlightening/educational insights so that in turn I can have good discussions with others)
Recently had some discussions with cis-heterosexual men about what they think about feminism and I find that I need better language and perhaps more insights as to how to address some of what they're saying, like:
- how feminism led to a culture of women saying they don't need men for anything and that all men are useless and only to be used for their money
- how it led to men hating women (because of the idea that feminism = women hate men)
- how what most women fail to understand is that men are wired differently, and that you can't want to claim to not need a man for anything and then expect a traditional relationship
- "If you even approach a woman these days or even just do something like look in their direction, you get labelled as a creep"
- there's a dark side to feminism
- what about women hating other women
I am a feminist and I have already explained the fight for equal rights (socially, politically, economically, etc). And when it comes to dating stuff and relationships, I also emphasise about establishing and respecting boundaries.
But sometimes when I get responses like the above I want to be able to answer in a calm and nuanced way so I'm hoping the hivemind can help.
(PS. Not looking to be divisive here, just really genuinely want enlightening/educational insights so that in turn I can have good discussions with others)
Maybe some of (the late, lamented) Shakesville's Feminism 101 entries could help:
On Feminists Being Alleged Man Haters
On Allegedly Looking for Things to Get Mad About
On Women Supposedly Being Their Own Worst Enemy
On Persistent Pursuit and Rape Culture
On Objectively Assessing Sexism
On the Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck
Feministing is another late lamented blog with similar really good stuff.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:15 PM on November 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
On Feminists Being Alleged Man Haters
On Allegedly Looking for Things to Get Mad About
On Women Supposedly Being Their Own Worst Enemy
On Persistent Pursuit and Rape Culture
On Objectively Assessing Sexism
On the Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck
Feministing is another late lamented blog with similar really good stuff.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:15 PM on November 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
What you're hearing from them isn't really a critique of feminism, it's a critique of a cardboard standup of feminism (pheminism?) that people use because it's a series of tropes and complaints they've heard repeatedly. It's much easier to critique the cardboard standup because it's destabilizing society! It's out to get people! It's ruining lives!
I don't think that it's particularly useful to address those complaints directly, because it gives credence to their assertion that those points about pheminism™ have something to do with feminism. Instead, if they're interested in actually discussing the topic, it might be useful to talk about the conceptual distinction outside and inside feminism--what is your idea of it versus theirs and why. Or if, as is often the case, they don't want to discuss the topic in good faith, hearing those kinds of phrases can serve as a warning to not engage because there will be no victory to be found here.
In terms of actual critique of feminism, there are some deep conversations to be had. One common issue with early feminism was the lack of intersectionality and the assumption of a white perspective. More recently, the language around feminism has been heavily co-opted to support anti-trans movements. But those are likely not the kinds of nuance that someone complaining about men-hating women is concerned about.
posted by past unusual at 4:19 PM on November 11, 2023 [16 favorites]
I don't think that it's particularly useful to address those complaints directly, because it gives credence to their assertion that those points about pheminism™ have something to do with feminism. Instead, if they're interested in actually discussing the topic, it might be useful to talk about the conceptual distinction outside and inside feminism--what is your idea of it versus theirs and why. Or if, as is often the case, they don't want to discuss the topic in good faith, hearing those kinds of phrases can serve as a warning to not engage because there will be no victory to be found here.
In terms of actual critique of feminism, there are some deep conversations to be had. One common issue with early feminism was the lack of intersectionality and the assumption of a white perspective. More recently, the language around feminism has been heavily co-opted to support anti-trans movements. But those are likely not the kinds of nuance that someone complaining about men-hating women is concerned about.
posted by past unusual at 4:19 PM on November 11, 2023 [16 favorites]
To be a feminist is not at all about hating men. Contrariwise, many men are feminists because they understand that a more equal society benefits them. Sharing the family tasks on an equal basis gives them better relationships with their children and parents, and less pressure to provide all the money. Feminism is about sharing and being together.
Are men wired differently? I don't know. There is a lot of performative culture around masculinity that seems to be really hard for men to deal with, but it isn't universal or genetically determined. Men feel love, they feel pain, they feel hunger and happiness. Just like women.
In some places, rape culture is still a thing. The popular notion in these places is that a man should be a predator and a woman prey. It's disgusting. But this can be deeply rooted, and even seem romantic, there are tons of songs and movies that present this as a good thing, from The Taming of The Shrew onward, including contemporary pop culture. Many women may even feel this is natural. In that context, some men may feel it is OK or even necessary to act creepy. It isn't.
I've never heard of any dark sides of feminism.
Some women hate some other women, just like some men hate other men. It has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.
posted by mumimor at 4:20 PM on November 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
Are men wired differently? I don't know. There is a lot of performative culture around masculinity that seems to be really hard for men to deal with, but it isn't universal or genetically determined. Men feel love, they feel pain, they feel hunger and happiness. Just like women.
In some places, rape culture is still a thing. The popular notion in these places is that a man should be a predator and a woman prey. It's disgusting. But this can be deeply rooted, and even seem romantic, there are tons of songs and movies that present this as a good thing, from The Taming of The Shrew onward, including contemporary pop culture. Many women may even feel this is natural. In that context, some men may feel it is OK or even necessary to act creepy. It isn't.
I've never heard of any dark sides of feminism.
Some women hate some other women, just like some men hate other men. It has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.
posted by mumimor at 4:20 PM on November 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
As a boy mom (gag, sorry) I can say that it is really true that boys & men are getting cultural messages that women are better than men. I think a lot of the casual misandric language really does end up being harmful to the cause of feminism among young men these days.
posted by haptic_avenger at 4:24 PM on November 11, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by haptic_avenger at 4:24 PM on November 11, 2023 [10 favorites]
Old-school feminist here - so I remember sexism that would be unimaginable to young people today (when I was a kid, newspaper ads were divided into "jobs for men" and "jobs for women"). There were so many positive things about feminism that are being well covered by other people. But I think there were also unintended negative consequences, but not the ones your male friends are mentioning. The big downside was that women's independence gave men permission to be shittier.
I'm not saying men weren't shitty then - but it was a different kind of shittiness. And "good" men (there were actually quite a few) felt, for instance, that leaving your wife was a rotten thing to do partly because, as the saying was, "every married woman is one man away from welfare." There was an interesting column in the NYT today arguing that women aren't getting married because the men on dating apps are shitty.
As far as women not needing men for anything but money - I would argue that women actually don't need men for money anymore. So if women don't want to be involved with you (which is what it sounds like this is coming from), you're probably being shitty in some other way.
(I don't doubt that there are still some women that want men for money - that's because human beings are shitty. There were always women like that though. The term "gold digger" goes back to the 1930s.)
(I have a feeling I'm going to get piled on for things I didn't actually say.)
posted by FencingGal at 4:34 PM on November 11, 2023 [8 favorites]
I'm not saying men weren't shitty then - but it was a different kind of shittiness. And "good" men (there were actually quite a few) felt, for instance, that leaving your wife was a rotten thing to do partly because, as the saying was, "every married woman is one man away from welfare." There was an interesting column in the NYT today arguing that women aren't getting married because the men on dating apps are shitty.
As far as women not needing men for anything but money - I would argue that women actually don't need men for money anymore. So if women don't want to be involved with you (which is what it sounds like this is coming from), you're probably being shitty in some other way.
(I don't doubt that there are still some women that want men for money - that's because human beings are shitty. There were always women like that though. The term "gold digger" goes back to the 1930s.)
(I have a feeling I'm going to get piled on for things I didn't actually say.)
posted by FencingGal at 4:34 PM on November 11, 2023 [8 favorites]
I gotta say these all sound like bad faith arguments for reasons articulated above (for example, I have never heard a woman seriously say they never need men for anything or that men are useless or that they only want men for their money).
I think it’s more compelling to talk about ways in which sexism hurts men. For example, in a sexist society, men are discouraged from expressing emotion but that has led to a culture in which men commit suicide at higher rates than women.
posted by kat518 at 4:40 PM on November 11, 2023 [11 favorites]
I think it’s more compelling to talk about ways in which sexism hurts men. For example, in a sexist society, men are discouraged from expressing emotion but that has led to a culture in which men commit suicide at higher rates than women.
posted by kat518 at 4:40 PM on November 11, 2023 [11 favorites]
Feminism is just the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. There is nothing negative about that at all. It's something we all should believe. If believing in feminism also leads some people to believe that women are better than men (or anything else anyone thinks is bad) it doesn't mean feminism itself is a bad idea or something we should move away from.
Ask your friends to think about that logically for a minute. Even if it were 100% true that feminism led to more men hating women, would it make sense to try to fix that by deciding that, actually, women should not have the same rights and opportunities as men? Obviously not. We can't ditch feminism or ask people not to support it. If anyone thinks there's a widespread wrong idea or attitude in society (for instance, that women are better than men), they should try to convince other people not to believe that anymore, but it's not helpful to anyone for them to blame the wrong idea on feminism or try to counter it by fighting against feminism.
I obviously have no problems at all with the concept of feminism. I do wish feminists had never started talking about "the patriarchy." I feel like that's a concept that is just asking to be misunderstood and has done as much harm as good. It sounds like it means "the men who are ruling the world and actively trying to keep women in a subservient position." So guys who feel like they have no power, or who support feminism, or who at least aren't actively plotting against women think it doesn't include them. Women think it doesn't include them. Most people don't think they're part of the patriarchy and a lot of people argue that there is no such thing. If "the patriarchy" really means "the system we live in, which most of us had no conscious role in creating, and which gives more power to men," I wish we could come up with a way of talking about it that actually makes more people understand that's what we're talking about.
posted by Redstart at 5:02 PM on November 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
Ask your friends to think about that logically for a minute. Even if it were 100% true that feminism led to more men hating women, would it make sense to try to fix that by deciding that, actually, women should not have the same rights and opportunities as men? Obviously not. We can't ditch feminism or ask people not to support it. If anyone thinks there's a widespread wrong idea or attitude in society (for instance, that women are better than men), they should try to convince other people not to believe that anymore, but it's not helpful to anyone for them to blame the wrong idea on feminism or try to counter it by fighting against feminism.
I obviously have no problems at all with the concept of feminism. I do wish feminists had never started talking about "the patriarchy." I feel like that's a concept that is just asking to be misunderstood and has done as much harm as good. It sounds like it means "the men who are ruling the world and actively trying to keep women in a subservient position." So guys who feel like they have no power, or who support feminism, or who at least aren't actively plotting against women think it doesn't include them. Women think it doesn't include them. Most people don't think they're part of the patriarchy and a lot of people argue that there is no such thing. If "the patriarchy" really means "the system we live in, which most of us had no conscious role in creating, and which gives more power to men," I wish we could come up with a way of talking about it that actually makes more people understand that's what we're talking about.
posted by Redstart at 5:02 PM on November 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
If you will allow the satire, for illustration:
- democracy has led to a a culture that says the masses don’t need rich, educated, powerful elites and we should just use them for their money and steal their power
- democracy has made elites hate the masses more, because it led to the masses hating elites
- what most among the masses fail to understand is that elites are wired differently, and that you can't want to claim to not need a rich, educated, powerful elite for anything and then expect a robust economy, innovation, and social or technical progress
- "If you even suggest that the masses aren’t very qualified to select representative government these days or even just do something like use your vast philanthropic wealth to change the American elementary-school system to reflect the incentives you think should be driving student achievement, you get labelled as a creep"
- there's a dark side to democracy
- what about political parties hating people within their own political party so they never actually meet constituent needs
To me, at least, all of these arguments sound fundamentally ludicrous. “Democracy” is not at issue when individual humans or societies fuck up the implementation of it - it is a principle we work towards, rather than a sum of all actions taken or outcomes obtained in its pursuit. For me, feminism is the same.
Feminist movements have been racist, intersectional, exclusive, inclusive, pursued Goal A or Goal B; academics have developed feminist theories; bloggers or writers or artists or comedians have self-identified themselves or their work as feminist. But neither ERA advocates nor bra-burners nor bell hooks nor Andrea Dworkin nor Everyday Feminism nor Jezebel nor the sum of all these plus every other possible “feminist” thing in history *is* “feminism”, just as neither the United States nor Hungary nor Thom Paine nor the Unabomber nor Politifact nor Breitbart is “democracy”.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 5:13 PM on November 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
- democracy has led to a a culture that says the masses don’t need rich, educated, powerful elites and we should just use them for their money and steal their power
- democracy has made elites hate the masses more, because it led to the masses hating elites
- what most among the masses fail to understand is that elites are wired differently, and that you can't want to claim to not need a rich, educated, powerful elite for anything and then expect a robust economy, innovation, and social or technical progress
- "If you even suggest that the masses aren’t very qualified to select representative government these days or even just do something like use your vast philanthropic wealth to change the American elementary-school system to reflect the incentives you think should be driving student achievement, you get labelled as a creep"
- there's a dark side to democracy
- what about political parties hating people within their own political party so they never actually meet constituent needs
To me, at least, all of these arguments sound fundamentally ludicrous. “Democracy” is not at issue when individual humans or societies fuck up the implementation of it - it is a principle we work towards, rather than a sum of all actions taken or outcomes obtained in its pursuit. For me, feminism is the same.
Feminist movements have been racist, intersectional, exclusive, inclusive, pursued Goal A or Goal B; academics have developed feminist theories; bloggers or writers or artists or comedians have self-identified themselves or their work as feminist. But neither ERA advocates nor bra-burners nor bell hooks nor Andrea Dworkin nor Everyday Feminism nor Jezebel nor the sum of all these plus every other possible “feminist” thing in history *is* “feminism”, just as neither the United States nor Hungary nor Thom Paine nor the Unabomber nor Politifact nor Breitbart is “democracy”.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 5:13 PM on November 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
I can say that it is really true that boys & men are getting cultural messages that women are better than men. I think a lot of the casual misandric language really does end up being harmful to the cause of feminism among young men these days.
As opposed to young women, who receive absolutely zero messages that men are better than women? Sounds like these young men have an empathy problem.
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 6:53 PM on November 11, 2023 [19 favorites]
As opposed to young women, who receive absolutely zero messages that men are better than women? Sounds like these young men have an empathy problem.
posted by See you tomorrow, saguaro at 6:53 PM on November 11, 2023 [19 favorites]
Tbh all these arguments sound like "some girl I liked put me in the friend zone, feminism is to blame"
Notice how most of them have to do with relationships.
posted by creatrixtiara at 7:02 PM on November 11, 2023 [8 favorites]
Notice how most of them have to do with relationships.
posted by creatrixtiara at 7:02 PM on November 11, 2023 [8 favorites]
The only "argument" I'm ever having with anyone about feminism or equal rights ever again is a riff on that thing RBG said. What is the right number of women on the Supreme Court? Nine. Because it's been nine men, and people didn't have a problem with that.
So, someone wants to argue about equal rights with me? Explain to me, actually explain with words and reasoning, why a truly equal world wouldn't or shouldn't contain a future with nine women on the Supreme Court.
(Or 100 queer masc black senators. Or the c-suite of a fortune 500 company is comprised entirely of trans women. Or or or. Feel free to target the thought experiment to the situation.)
The western world has been so consumed by white male supremacy for literally thousands of years that any scenario you could choose has a historic (or current!!) example where the power structure is entirely white men. If equality, true equality, can't swing around to the other far end of the bell curve by pure merit, then why not? When people try to explain their way out of this their biases, bad faith arguments, and logical fallacies quickly start to reveal themselves. And then you'll finally have a tangible point to argue from.
posted by phunniemee at 8:04 PM on November 11, 2023 [25 favorites]
So, someone wants to argue about equal rights with me? Explain to me, actually explain with words and reasoning, why a truly equal world wouldn't or shouldn't contain a future with nine women on the Supreme Court.
(Or 100 queer masc black senators. Or the c-suite of a fortune 500 company is comprised entirely of trans women. Or or or. Feel free to target the thought experiment to the situation.)
The western world has been so consumed by white male supremacy for literally thousands of years that any scenario you could choose has a historic (or current!!) example where the power structure is entirely white men. If equality, true equality, can't swing around to the other far end of the bell curve by pure merit, then why not? When people try to explain their way out of this their biases, bad faith arguments, and logical fallacies quickly start to reveal themselves. And then you'll finally have a tangible point to argue from.
posted by phunniemee at 8:04 PM on November 11, 2023 [25 favorites]
So when I encounter the kind of arguments you describe, I try to focus on the underlying concerns rather than the outward complaints (which aren't particularly based in any real understanding of feminist movements anyway). In my experience, many people who complain about feminism in the way you describe aren't really reacting to the feminist movement(s) so much as they are struggling and/or refusing to critique the way that gender roles foster a transactional view of relationships. (I suspect that what some folks might call the "dark side of feminism" or "women hating men/men hating women" are just extensions/super-charged versions of these views, which some versions of feminism perpetuate). The complaints you describe are indicative of the way that gender norms (and patriarchy) encourage us to frame relationships in general and romantic love in particular as a gendered and inequitable exchange of goods and services, where my gender determines what I owe you or what you owe me. In this mindset, it's easy (albeit wrong) to hear "I don't need you" as equivalent to "I don't love you." It's is a pretty profound problem (for all genders!), but it's one that I think feminist thinkers can be very helpful in addressing.
As an example: men are frequently rewarded for performance, productivity, and competitiveness (and punished or mocked for failing to be these things). At its best, feminism encourages us to question why we insist that men earn a sense of worthiness and belonging, often in damaging and objectifying ways (money, aggression, or domination over others, especially women). When feminists talk about objectification, we often talk about objectification in the sense of sexualization, but this is another form of objectification: men are often encouraged to turn themselves into objects (measured by their productivity, strength, aggression, and competitiveness) rather than to value themselves as subjects (as intrinsically valuable people who love, create, feel, and exist). In this framework, it's very hard to have an idea of love that doesn't involve both (a) fearing that the second you fail to perform your gender role (i.e., once you fail to prove how necessary, dominant, or competitive you are) you are no longer lovable and (b) conflating the feeling of needing/deserving someone with loving them. It also turns most relationships, regardless of gender, into a competition or a power struggle—not only is this damaging, but from what I understand from the men in my own life, it can be pretty lonely.
I find it can be helpful to get people who are skeptical of "feminism" (writ large)—at least, the ones who genuinely seem interested— engaging with how they've experienced this in their lives, and from there, encourage them to recognize how their experiences are the downstream consequences of the very assumptions/ideas that feminism exists to critique. That said: there are folks who are not ready/open to these conversations, so your mileage may vary.
You may find it helpful to read bell hooks's The Will to Change and Kate Manne's Down Girl (particularly the introduction). They may not change everyone's minds, but they can be helpful in forming your own thinking.
posted by lavenderhaze at 8:30 PM on November 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
As an example: men are frequently rewarded for performance, productivity, and competitiveness (and punished or mocked for failing to be these things). At its best, feminism encourages us to question why we insist that men earn a sense of worthiness and belonging, often in damaging and objectifying ways (money, aggression, or domination over others, especially women). When feminists talk about objectification, we often talk about objectification in the sense of sexualization, but this is another form of objectification: men are often encouraged to turn themselves into objects (measured by their productivity, strength, aggression, and competitiveness) rather than to value themselves as subjects (as intrinsically valuable people who love, create, feel, and exist). In this framework, it's very hard to have an idea of love that doesn't involve both (a) fearing that the second you fail to perform your gender role (i.e., once you fail to prove how necessary, dominant, or competitive you are) you are no longer lovable and (b) conflating the feeling of needing/deserving someone with loving them. It also turns most relationships, regardless of gender, into a competition or a power struggle—not only is this damaging, but from what I understand from the men in my own life, it can be pretty lonely.
I find it can be helpful to get people who are skeptical of "feminism" (writ large)—at least, the ones who genuinely seem interested— engaging with how they've experienced this in their lives, and from there, encourage them to recognize how their experiences are the downstream consequences of the very assumptions/ideas that feminism exists to critique. That said: there are folks who are not ready/open to these conversations, so your mileage may vary.
You may find it helpful to read bell hooks's The Will to Change and Kate Manne's Down Girl (particularly the introduction). They may not change everyone's minds, but they can be helpful in forming your own thinking.
posted by lavenderhaze at 8:30 PM on November 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
Your friends are right that there have been negative consequences of shifting gender roles in the last 100 years.
For example, it used to be that you could support a family on a single salary. Women entered the formal workplace and now you need two full time jobs to support a family. Hard to see that as positive.
There is also a lot of emphasis on women's empowerment and potential in the new economy, but no corresponding enthusiasm for men's new role. I can see why some men would feel like their old role has disappeared and there is no good alternative (see some of the comments above suggesting men who are unhappy with the status quo must hate women). I have definitely heard women say they see no use for a man and find it hard to believe others haven't. Just search social media for "men are trash".
Does this mean feminism is bad? I don't think so! It has been absolutely great for me. But our status quo is not perfect and one of the ways it can be improved is by taking men's dissatisfaction seriously.
Just my two cents!
posted by Chausette at 12:40 AM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
For example, it used to be that you could support a family on a single salary. Women entered the formal workplace and now you need two full time jobs to support a family. Hard to see that as positive.
There is also a lot of emphasis on women's empowerment and potential in the new economy, but no corresponding enthusiasm for men's new role. I can see why some men would feel like their old role has disappeared and there is no good alternative (see some of the comments above suggesting men who are unhappy with the status quo must hate women). I have definitely heard women say they see no use for a man and find it hard to believe others haven't. Just search social media for "men are trash".
Does this mean feminism is bad? I don't think so! It has been absolutely great for me. But our status quo is not perfect and one of the ways it can be improved is by taking men's dissatisfaction seriously.
Just my two cents!
posted by Chausette at 12:40 AM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
If "the patriarchy" really means "the system we live in, which most of us had no conscious role in creating, and which gives more power to men," I wish we could come up with a way of talking about it that actually makes more people understand that's what we're talking about.It's a subset of "kyriarchy", a very handy word that most people don't have a pre-existing definition of; so we do have a way of talking about that! I'm not sure that's as commonly used as it was several years ago, or maybe I'm not reading the relevant stuff lately.
I've also observed that some people have problems with the word "patriarchy" in the same way they have problems with the word "privilege". There's a colloquial sense and there's a more technical/sociological sense, and people can definitely be talking at cross-purposes if they're using different senses. "Feminism" has perhaps even more clouds of meaning.
In general, "you're talking about it wrong" can be used to ignore people, but in one-on-one conversations I personally don't mind talking about how we talk about things in combination with actually talking about the things. (I like words.)
posted by inexorably_forward at 12:47 AM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
When I grew up in the fifties and sixties, I never saw a female doctor or lawyer. Feminism delivered both.
posted by Elsie at 3:35 AM on November 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Elsie at 3:35 AM on November 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
I've never heard of any dark sides of feminism.
Yeah...uh...the dark side of equality? Wha?
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:23 AM on November 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
Yeah...uh...the dark side of equality? Wha?
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:23 AM on November 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
>For example, it used to be that you could support a family on a single salary. Women entered the formal workplace and now you need two full time jobs to support a family. Hard to see that as positive.
I’m sorry but no. Women had always been made available for capitalist output from at least the industrial revolution. Men were calling all shots that created these jobs and men largely created the reality that necessitates two incomes in our day. To say otherwise is to prove that we need feminism.
And yes people can get lazy about terms, “the patriarchy” being one of them. When I hear that as a white cis straight guy, I hear “monoculture.” It is usually unhealthy to allow any one organism to take complete control for so long. Variety is needed. Feminism (I will try to apply “intersectional” here thiugh I havent studied enough) has been a force for injecting health into this centuries-long runaway trend.
posted by drowsy at 5:46 AM on November 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
I’m sorry but no. Women had always been made available for capitalist output from at least the industrial revolution. Men were calling all shots that created these jobs and men largely created the reality that necessitates two incomes in our day. To say otherwise is to prove that we need feminism.
And yes people can get lazy about terms, “the patriarchy” being one of them. When I hear that as a white cis straight guy, I hear “monoculture.” It is usually unhealthy to allow any one organism to take complete control for so long. Variety is needed. Feminism (I will try to apply “intersectional” here thiugh I havent studied enough) has been a force for injecting health into this centuries-long runaway trend.
posted by drowsy at 5:46 AM on November 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
(Which is to say, I also wouldn't engage in arguments based on a bad premise...drilling down into "what do you mean" will likely elicit something clearer to discuss - or expose the non-good-faith ugliness beneath)
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:47 AM on November 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:47 AM on November 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
This nyt gift opinion discusses the different things that women are looking for in relationships/marriages now which is not probably useful in addressing these conversations but does explain to me the actual reasons for the statements you list.
Specifically:
But not all men; the men of the professional classes were, in effect, successfully re-educated into a new set of egalitarian and emotionally sensitive norms, making them desirable partners even under conditions of female independence. So the impediment to expanding the present benefits of upper-class marriage to the rest of society is psychological, not just material. More money helps, but you ultimately need less educated men to effectively become different kinds of people, to discard toxic masculinity and embrace enlightened manhood in some form. (Especially since now that women earn more college degrees, they’re often the ones who need to marry down the education ladder, and you can’t expect that to happen if blue-collar men are stuck on patriarchy.)
posted by RoadScholar at 5:59 AM on November 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
Specifically:
But not all men; the men of the professional classes were, in effect, successfully re-educated into a new set of egalitarian and emotionally sensitive norms, making them desirable partners even under conditions of female independence. So the impediment to expanding the present benefits of upper-class marriage to the rest of society is psychological, not just material. More money helps, but you ultimately need less educated men to effectively become different kinds of people, to discard toxic masculinity and embrace enlightened manhood in some form. (Especially since now that women earn more college degrees, they’re often the ones who need to marry down the education ladder, and you can’t expect that to happen if blue-collar men are stuck on patriarchy.)
posted by RoadScholar at 5:59 AM on November 12, 2023 [6 favorites]
First perhaps define what the feminism under discussion is - equality or something else closer to the "feminazi" (sorry) popularized by Rush Limbaugh?
(I'm not sure your folks are good faith wanting to learn more or open to hearing your good responses but maybe?)
Maybe the next step is to look for what you can agree on:
Equality is good?
Not all feminists are "feminazi" as defined by Limbaugh?
Women and men (some at least?) both want good relationships? What would or could that look like?
posted by RoadScholar at 6:09 AM on November 12, 2023
(I'm not sure your folks are good faith wanting to learn more or open to hearing your good responses but maybe?)
Maybe the next step is to look for what you can agree on:
Equality is good?
Not all feminists are "feminazi" as defined by Limbaugh?
Women and men (some at least?) both want good relationships? What would or could that look like?
posted by RoadScholar at 6:09 AM on November 12, 2023
I think the appropriate response to any of those arguments is "okay, but that's not part of the feminist philosophy, is it?"
Because they don't know and are making it up.
And then you say, "If you want to talk about social issues that are not part of feminist philosophy that's okay and I think I can help you, but if this isn't a good faith interest in educating yourself then I can't help you."
posted by Lyn Never at 6:25 AM on November 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
Because they don't know and are making it up.
And then you say, "If you want to talk about social issues that are not part of feminist philosophy that's okay and I think I can help you, but if this isn't a good faith interest in educating yourself then I can't help you."
posted by Lyn Never at 6:25 AM on November 12, 2023 [10 favorites]
Another unintended consequence is that women started working full time, but men didn't step up and take their share of responsibility for housework and childcare. So men had the best of both worlds - the additional income from their wives with no extra work. This led to women being exhausted and resentful.
And this cuts across class lines. Men in the professional classes are better at talking a good game - they know what to say - but when you look at their actual contributions to the household, I'd bet that very few of them are truly taking equal responsibility.
If men focused less on how women aren't giving them what they want and more on what they can do to be good partners, they'd have a lot less trouble finding women who want to date them.
posted by FencingGal at 6:25 AM on November 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
And this cuts across class lines. Men in the professional classes are better at talking a good game - they know what to say - but when you look at their actual contributions to the household, I'd bet that very few of them are truly taking equal responsibility.
If men focused less on how women aren't giving them what they want and more on what they can do to be good partners, they'd have a lot less trouble finding women who want to date them.
posted by FencingGal at 6:25 AM on November 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
In terms of the original q: seems like a pretty specific set of beefs. I wonder how many women these guys actually know? Not being facetious, I am always surprised, then not surprised, when I find a new clutch of dudes with these attitudes and I ask them this question. The answer seems to split (and I am going with cis here) women into: ‘beings that should find them attractive but do not’, ‘beings who do not need to find them attractive but make them feel ok’, ‘beings who may or may not need to find them attractive but contribute to reducing their attractiveness to other women’, and ‘mom which can get complicated’. Sometimes you get ‘beings who are attracted to them but no thanks’.
The point being that all args are bullshit because it centers around them not getting lucky with the women they feel they deserve. It can get scary but as a dude who is not well read on the topic, I assume their self worth is at issue. I usually ask why they rely on others for that. Then I ask are you really so weak that you want a world built with so many financial traps that when you do get what you want you know it was because the game is rigged? Because you end up with the same doubts.
posted by drowsy at 7:00 AM on November 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
The point being that all args are bullshit because it centers around them not getting lucky with the women they feel they deserve. It can get scary but as a dude who is not well read on the topic, I assume their self worth is at issue. I usually ask why they rely on others for that. Then I ask are you really so weak that you want a world built with so many financial traps that when you do get what you want you know it was because the game is rigged? Because you end up with the same doubts.
posted by drowsy at 7:00 AM on November 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
The men you've engaged with on this topic seem aware of the term "feminism" but haven't gone past the label.
My first encounter with feminism was when I exited the Army and attended a political science class at A.S.U. The readings assigned for this class included "Sisterhood Is Powerful" and so on. One of the women remarked, "We don't want our fair share of the loaf (of bread). We want to own a fucking bakery.
This was 1971. Participating in cultural upheaval was usual for most people under 30. N.O.W. was the feminist offering at the time. Our culture and policies were revealed to have systemic dissonance. One of the men in the class thought to research the Rock-and-Roll songs of the era. He hypothesized that the new music revealed an emerging equity among the races and sexes. His presentation, he admitted, showed just the opposite. It seems our Hippiedom, too, had its flaws. It wasn't simply governmental deceit about foreign policy or our naive belief that racism was endemic only to the Deep South. It was the fabric of our country that was skewed, folded into dark places that we had not the stomach to examine.
This was not an easy pill for me to swallow. The anger of the women in the class, and female students in general, was awesome. The notion of equitable relationships was suddenly turned upside down. If I may be trite, I thought equity was when I brought home the bacon, and my wife would cook it. Me mighty hunter, you make the baskets (and keep the campfire going, and keep track of the kids, and skin the game I bring home, and don't worry your pretty little head about the meetings of the tribal council).
I can't claim to have dived very deep into the feminist politics of the day, as I was already churning about, reevaluating the meaning of my eight years in the Army, but I did get the point. Also rising was gay politics and culture, as well as racially oriented violence. Now, please consider how reflexive pushback works. If your status is threatened, your reflex is to resist. We all know the trope: power isn't relinquished voluntarily; it's taken. "Taken" doesn't always mean wrenched violently away, but it does mean wrenched.
Arguments posited by the men in O.P.'s post seem to come from ignorance or uneasiness related to the prospect of being unseated as a relationship's prime mover and shaker. These are also features of various "-isms" that solidify systemically in a culture. Incrustated politics usually smother challenges to these prejudices, but they can lead to horrible ends.
I'm not sure how a man might qualify as a feminist. No certificate of achievement seems to be in the offing on this point. Seeds planted in that political science class in 1971 are still germinating. It seems to me that feminism for men is a process, the same way relieving oneself of racism or chauvinism is a process. The significant metric shows up when systemic "-isms" are identified and eliminated. But core beliefs happen one person at a time.
The men cited in the post may or may not be making good-faith arguments. Still, they are talking about their misperceptions or insecurity in a cultural situation that is still evolving.
O.P. may usefully engage with the men who are willing to do a bit of reading about the topic. It seems clear that unsorted and unsupported beliefs inform their attitudes. They can't engage in a helpful discussion if they don't want to hold up their end of a discussion (for whatever reason); I don't see any way to respond to them except to sigh and walk away.
Full disclosure: three failed marriages.
posted by mule98J at 8:03 AM on November 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
My first encounter with feminism was when I exited the Army and attended a political science class at A.S.U. The readings assigned for this class included "Sisterhood Is Powerful" and so on. One of the women remarked, "We don't want our fair share of the loaf (of bread). We want to own a fucking bakery.
This was 1971. Participating in cultural upheaval was usual for most people under 30. N.O.W. was the feminist offering at the time. Our culture and policies were revealed to have systemic dissonance. One of the men in the class thought to research the Rock-and-Roll songs of the era. He hypothesized that the new music revealed an emerging equity among the races and sexes. His presentation, he admitted, showed just the opposite. It seems our Hippiedom, too, had its flaws. It wasn't simply governmental deceit about foreign policy or our naive belief that racism was endemic only to the Deep South. It was the fabric of our country that was skewed, folded into dark places that we had not the stomach to examine.
This was not an easy pill for me to swallow. The anger of the women in the class, and female students in general, was awesome. The notion of equitable relationships was suddenly turned upside down. If I may be trite, I thought equity was when I brought home the bacon, and my wife would cook it. Me mighty hunter, you make the baskets (and keep the campfire going, and keep track of the kids, and skin the game I bring home, and don't worry your pretty little head about the meetings of the tribal council).
I can't claim to have dived very deep into the feminist politics of the day, as I was already churning about, reevaluating the meaning of my eight years in the Army, but I did get the point. Also rising was gay politics and culture, as well as racially oriented violence. Now, please consider how reflexive pushback works. If your status is threatened, your reflex is to resist. We all know the trope: power isn't relinquished voluntarily; it's taken. "Taken" doesn't always mean wrenched violently away, but it does mean wrenched.
Arguments posited by the men in O.P.'s post seem to come from ignorance or uneasiness related to the prospect of being unseated as a relationship's prime mover and shaker. These are also features of various "-isms" that solidify systemically in a culture. Incrustated politics usually smother challenges to these prejudices, but they can lead to horrible ends.
I'm not sure how a man might qualify as a feminist. No certificate of achievement seems to be in the offing on this point. Seeds planted in that political science class in 1971 are still germinating. It seems to me that feminism for men is a process, the same way relieving oneself of racism or chauvinism is a process. The significant metric shows up when systemic "-isms" are identified and eliminated. But core beliefs happen one person at a time.
The men cited in the post may or may not be making good-faith arguments. Still, they are talking about their misperceptions or insecurity in a cultural situation that is still evolving.
O.P. may usefully engage with the men who are willing to do a bit of reading about the topic. It seems clear that unsorted and unsupported beliefs inform their attitudes. They can't engage in a helpful discussion if they don't want to hold up their end of a discussion (for whatever reason); I don't see any way to respond to them except to sigh and walk away.
Full disclosure: three failed marriages.
posted by mule98J at 8:03 AM on November 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
I am a feminist who has seen massive benefits, but also has some concerns with how the feminist movement has acted and also some of the second order consequences of how capitalism has made use of feminism: hopefully this is helpful.
First and most important: I think it is important to note that as someone said above, as women began being admitted into the workplace en masse, paid wages went down for everyone in mid and low wage work, and that this is not the fault of women, or feminism, but the fault of capitalists. Capitalists cheerfully said, "Ah, women can work now? Great, I don't have to pay you enough to support a family!" And we shifted from a household where one wage could comfortably support a family to households where at least two wages were needed to support a family. This made everyone's lives worse. More people were on the roads and people couldn't afford to live as close to work, which made commuting worse. There were less people at home to handle the work of the house, which made time strained and everyone more on edge. Everyone had less free time.
Secondly, I think that one of the things that was good previously about defined gender roles was that men were taught that they needed to have skills and talents in order to be useful to the women in their lives. This often manifested as kind of blue-collar skills: knowing how to do your own plumbing, or car repair, or home carpentry. Men were generally taught these skills by their fathers. As a feminist, I don't think this training *had* to be gendered, but I do think that as the kind of...ungendering...of social roles took place, men felt that this was less necessary to pass on. Additionally, I think part of this training also often manifested as the skills of being a father and a husband, which men felt less comfortable about passing on with rapidly shifting social norms. The lack of this training, in my view, has meant that most men I have dated have brought very little to the table that I couldn't or didn't do myself. I *do* find many men to be functionally useless - they aren't trained enough to be helpful at domestic labor, and they're not trained at anything else. I'll be honest - the men I have enjoyed dating most have been ones who received this training, who felt that they needed to earn their place in a woman's life and who felt confident in their ability to do so. Being a "provider" isn't just about money, but for someone who didn't receive that training, money may be all they have to offer - which in a time where money is becoming more and more scarce under our current form of capitalism, would make men feel less and less worthy.
Thirdly, I do feel fundamentally and deeply that there *are* differences between how men and women tend to interact. It may be because of how they are socialized to interact; I'm not sure. But I feel that often being a feminist requires me to publicly pretend that there aren't differences, that certain things aren't harder for men or women. I feel that's tiresome and I can easily see how men would find it tiresome as well.
Fourthly, I really appreciate the sharp reduction in predatory sexual behavior that feminism has brought about. I very viscerally remember the moment when I began to have the conversation with my daughter about "when one of your friends is raped, here's what to do" and she stared at me in horror, like, what, were your friends raped often enough that this was a conversation you thought you should have? And I had to confess that yes, I don't actually have many friends who weren't raped, the eighties and nineties were a terrible time.
But also, I think that we have not done a good job of replacing predatory sexual behavior with a model of what healthy dominant sexual behavior for men looks like. I'm not saying that all men need to be sexually dominant, but I think that some are, and some heterosexual women prefer them that way: I am one of those women. I think that there was a period of time when we easily could have done so, but I think we leaned far too heavily on a nothing-without-explicit-consent standard that doesn't leave room for polite-but-bold advances paired with polite acceptance of rejection. And I see real harm perpetrated that way on the next generation, which...isn't pairing off. My daughter told me a few years ago that teens her age weren't able to initiate a relationship unless they knew exactly what kind of relationship they were hoping to initiate. The kids are barely dating, they are getting no practice dating, they are entering their twenties having had bare months of feeble relationships at best. They are entering relationships with no chemistry that provoke months of misery before they break up for the obvious reason that was plainly visible at the start. I don't have any boys under my wing, but I worry deeply about my daughter and her non-binary friends who are struggling with relationships. I can only imagine what it's like for boys. I don't think they're actually being labeled as creeps, but I think they probably worry about it.
Fifthly, we started demanded to be treated as equals before we actually created equality, and didn't really pay attention to the impacts of how it was happening. Nowhere is this more to be seen than in the divorce process with children. No-fault divorce with 50/50 custody means that two people need to create homes capable of rearing children in, on an income half of what they had before, usually without much child support to do so. And because the expectation is that everyone should immediately be working, each person needs to acquire their own childcare, which is incredibly expensive, making everyone massively poorer.
Sixthly, the feminist movement tended to act in counter to what it perceived as its opposition, which meant it left a lot of women behind. It tended to talk a lot about reproductive choice, but what it meant was birth control and abortion. There is little to no reproductive fertility choice out there for women who aren't rich, and it generally isn't seen as a movement goal by most feminists I talk to, because the goal of having more children isn't seen as a feminist thing. I have one child and desperately want more - I'm still a feminist, but that one smarts.
Seventh, as someone said above, the sexual revolution was helpful in that you know, you're not immediately viewed as a whore for having a child 'out of wedlock', but also, it kind of failed those of us who would like sexual fidelity from men, because they got to throw away any social pressure to adhere to those standards. And that kind of sucks. When men talk about women hating women, in some cases I think it's because heterosexual women are now competing with other heterosexual women in ways they never used to have to before - because a man can cheerfully announce that he's dating three women at a time and you just need to take it whether you like it or not. I haven't done this, but seen it happen to my younger peers.
Now as a feminist, especially when I'm talking to men, I don't lean on the divorce thing. What I like to lean on is the income thing and point out that the single income could have been performed by someone of either gender, and that companies could easily afford to do so. I like to point out that many men are wonderful fathers and some would prefer to stay at home with their children, and wouldn't it be nice if they also had that ability? I point to Germany and similar countries that allow paternity leave and talk about how connected it makes fathers with the kids. I talk about the pressures of time, and ask what they would like to do for women that they feel they're not able to do now.
I also tend to open with an admission that there have been losses as well as gains. That's hard! Super hard to admit to a man. And I'll be honest that I usually pick the losses that are least attributable directly to the feminist movement. But I find that it gives me an instant credibility that I'm there to deal honestly and have an honest conversation.
posted by corb at 9:15 AM on November 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
First and most important: I think it is important to note that as someone said above, as women began being admitted into the workplace en masse, paid wages went down for everyone in mid and low wage work, and that this is not the fault of women, or feminism, but the fault of capitalists. Capitalists cheerfully said, "Ah, women can work now? Great, I don't have to pay you enough to support a family!" And we shifted from a household where one wage could comfortably support a family to households where at least two wages were needed to support a family. This made everyone's lives worse. More people were on the roads and people couldn't afford to live as close to work, which made commuting worse. There were less people at home to handle the work of the house, which made time strained and everyone more on edge. Everyone had less free time.
Secondly, I think that one of the things that was good previously about defined gender roles was that men were taught that they needed to have skills and talents in order to be useful to the women in their lives. This often manifested as kind of blue-collar skills: knowing how to do your own plumbing, or car repair, or home carpentry. Men were generally taught these skills by their fathers. As a feminist, I don't think this training *had* to be gendered, but I do think that as the kind of...ungendering...of social roles took place, men felt that this was less necessary to pass on. Additionally, I think part of this training also often manifested as the skills of being a father and a husband, which men felt less comfortable about passing on with rapidly shifting social norms. The lack of this training, in my view, has meant that most men I have dated have brought very little to the table that I couldn't or didn't do myself. I *do* find many men to be functionally useless - they aren't trained enough to be helpful at domestic labor, and they're not trained at anything else. I'll be honest - the men I have enjoyed dating most have been ones who received this training, who felt that they needed to earn their place in a woman's life and who felt confident in their ability to do so. Being a "provider" isn't just about money, but for someone who didn't receive that training, money may be all they have to offer - which in a time where money is becoming more and more scarce under our current form of capitalism, would make men feel less and less worthy.
Thirdly, I do feel fundamentally and deeply that there *are* differences between how men and women tend to interact. It may be because of how they are socialized to interact; I'm not sure. But I feel that often being a feminist requires me to publicly pretend that there aren't differences, that certain things aren't harder for men or women. I feel that's tiresome and I can easily see how men would find it tiresome as well.
Fourthly, I really appreciate the sharp reduction in predatory sexual behavior that feminism has brought about. I very viscerally remember the moment when I began to have the conversation with my daughter about "when one of your friends is raped, here's what to do" and she stared at me in horror, like, what, were your friends raped often enough that this was a conversation you thought you should have? And I had to confess that yes, I don't actually have many friends who weren't raped, the eighties and nineties were a terrible time.
But also, I think that we have not done a good job of replacing predatory sexual behavior with a model of what healthy dominant sexual behavior for men looks like. I'm not saying that all men need to be sexually dominant, but I think that some are, and some heterosexual women prefer them that way: I am one of those women. I think that there was a period of time when we easily could have done so, but I think we leaned far too heavily on a nothing-without-explicit-consent standard that doesn't leave room for polite-but-bold advances paired with polite acceptance of rejection. And I see real harm perpetrated that way on the next generation, which...isn't pairing off. My daughter told me a few years ago that teens her age weren't able to initiate a relationship unless they knew exactly what kind of relationship they were hoping to initiate. The kids are barely dating, they are getting no practice dating, they are entering their twenties having had bare months of feeble relationships at best. They are entering relationships with no chemistry that provoke months of misery before they break up for the obvious reason that was plainly visible at the start. I don't have any boys under my wing, but I worry deeply about my daughter and her non-binary friends who are struggling with relationships. I can only imagine what it's like for boys. I don't think they're actually being labeled as creeps, but I think they probably worry about it.
Fifthly, we started demanded to be treated as equals before we actually created equality, and didn't really pay attention to the impacts of how it was happening. Nowhere is this more to be seen than in the divorce process with children. No-fault divorce with 50/50 custody means that two people need to create homes capable of rearing children in, on an income half of what they had before, usually without much child support to do so. And because the expectation is that everyone should immediately be working, each person needs to acquire their own childcare, which is incredibly expensive, making everyone massively poorer.
Sixthly, the feminist movement tended to act in counter to what it perceived as its opposition, which meant it left a lot of women behind. It tended to talk a lot about reproductive choice, but what it meant was birth control and abortion. There is little to no reproductive fertility choice out there for women who aren't rich, and it generally isn't seen as a movement goal by most feminists I talk to, because the goal of having more children isn't seen as a feminist thing. I have one child and desperately want more - I'm still a feminist, but that one smarts.
Seventh, as someone said above, the sexual revolution was helpful in that you know, you're not immediately viewed as a whore for having a child 'out of wedlock', but also, it kind of failed those of us who would like sexual fidelity from men, because they got to throw away any social pressure to adhere to those standards. And that kind of sucks. When men talk about women hating women, in some cases I think it's because heterosexual women are now competing with other heterosexual women in ways they never used to have to before - because a man can cheerfully announce that he's dating three women at a time and you just need to take it whether you like it or not. I haven't done this, but seen it happen to my younger peers.
Now as a feminist, especially when I'm talking to men, I don't lean on the divorce thing. What I like to lean on is the income thing and point out that the single income could have been performed by someone of either gender, and that companies could easily afford to do so. I like to point out that many men are wonderful fathers and some would prefer to stay at home with their children, and wouldn't it be nice if they also had that ability? I point to Germany and similar countries that allow paternity leave and talk about how connected it makes fathers with the kids. I talk about the pressures of time, and ask what they would like to do for women that they feel they're not able to do now.
I also tend to open with an admission that there have been losses as well as gains. That's hard! Super hard to admit to a man. And I'll be honest that I usually pick the losses that are least attributable directly to the feminist movement. But I find that it gives me an instant credibility that I'm there to deal honestly and have an honest conversation.
posted by corb at 9:15 AM on November 12, 2023 [11 favorites]
From "On the Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck" link above:
"This, then, is the terrible bargain we have regretfully struck: Men are allowed the easy comfort of their unexamined privilege, but my regard will always be shot through with a steely, anxious bolt of caution... I hope those men will hear me when I say, again, I do not hate you. I mistrust you. You can tell yourselves that's a problem with me, some inherent flaw, some evidence that I am fucked up and broken and weird; you can choose to believe that the women in your lives are nothing like me. Or you can be vigilant, can make yourselves trustworthy. Every day."
Those of us with privilege have to examine it constantly, have to be every bit as aware of it as are the people that privilege is weaponized against. Yes, it's exhausting and easy to fall back into "the easy comfort." It can be a hard lesson to teach kids. There's no easy way to just be "fair." Treating people "equally" isn't always enough.
And as much as we are all intellectual equals, it's disingenuous to deny that testosterone does have effects on the body and brain. We celebrate when trans men get to experience those effects. As a cis man, I struggle to celebrate them within myself, but it's all part of the evolving process.
I don't begrudge the mistrust, I don't begrudge that (perhaps) my son will have a harder time getting into certain universities or certain jobs because institutions are working harder to open opportunities for everyone. But I know a lot of people who DO begrudge those things, and those are people I try to engage with and explain how I try to see things.
posted by rikschell at 10:02 AM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
"This, then, is the terrible bargain we have regretfully struck: Men are allowed the easy comfort of their unexamined privilege, but my regard will always be shot through with a steely, anxious bolt of caution... I hope those men will hear me when I say, again, I do not hate you. I mistrust you. You can tell yourselves that's a problem with me, some inherent flaw, some evidence that I am fucked up and broken and weird; you can choose to believe that the women in your lives are nothing like me. Or you can be vigilant, can make yourselves trustworthy. Every day."
Those of us with privilege have to examine it constantly, have to be every bit as aware of it as are the people that privilege is weaponized against. Yes, it's exhausting and easy to fall back into "the easy comfort." It can be a hard lesson to teach kids. There's no easy way to just be "fair." Treating people "equally" isn't always enough.
And as much as we are all intellectual equals, it's disingenuous to deny that testosterone does have effects on the body and brain. We celebrate when trans men get to experience those effects. As a cis man, I struggle to celebrate them within myself, but it's all part of the evolving process.
I don't begrudge the mistrust, I don't begrudge that (perhaps) my son will have a harder time getting into certain universities or certain jobs because institutions are working harder to open opportunities for everyone. But I know a lot of people who DO begrudge those things, and those are people I try to engage with and explain how I try to see things.
posted by rikschell at 10:02 AM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Repost above gift link article to NYT that may not work on desktop.
Article title: "How Many Americans Are Marriage Material?"
posted by RoadScholar at 10:14 AM on November 12, 2023
Article title: "How Many Americans Are Marriage Material?"
posted by RoadScholar at 10:14 AM on November 12, 2023
I cede my entitlement to be listened to,
Which, if we're peers, I never had.
Where I used to decree and declaim and decide,
I have to listen, actively, in conversation.
I can't ignore how I feel and make others feel,
It's no longer outsourced, this emotional labour.
A whole bunch of my things are not now front and centre in culture,
diluted by puzzling things they say are 'not for me'.
I used to tell you who is 'of us' and 'not of us',
now I feel at risk I'm 'not of us'.
I was promised it could be 'great again',
Now it looks like I was conned -- while I'd never admit it -- we all fall victim of grifters from time to time.
All this has changed and, if it cost me, I can afford it, nothing was lost.
There will be some who feel the loss, who can't afford it, who've been told to blame those 'not of us' by those to blame.
posted by k3ninho at 3:43 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Which, if we're peers, I never had.
Where I used to decree and declaim and decide,
I have to listen, actively, in conversation.
I can't ignore how I feel and make others feel,
It's no longer outsourced, this emotional labour.
A whole bunch of my things are not now front and centre in culture,
diluted by puzzling things they say are 'not for me'.
I used to tell you who is 'of us' and 'not of us',
now I feel at risk I'm 'not of us'.
I was promised it could be 'great again',
Now it looks like I was conned -- while I'd never admit it -- we all fall victim of grifters from time to time.
All this has changed and, if it cost me, I can afford it, nothing was lost.
There will be some who feel the loss, who can't afford it, who've been told to blame those 'not of us' by those to blame.
posted by k3ninho at 3:43 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
As opposed to young women, who receive absolutely zero messages that men are better than women? Sounds like these young men have an empathy problem.
Oh yeah, another cultural message men and boys get is "other people have it harder, so toughen up and don't talk about things that bother you -- no one cares."
posted by alexei at 6:36 PM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Oh yeah, another cultural message men and boys get is "other people have it harder, so toughen up and don't talk about things that bother you -- no one cares."
posted by alexei at 6:36 PM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
> how feminism led to a culture of women saying they don't need men for anything and that all men are useless
Allow me to play devil's advocate and ask what is wrong with any of this. What do women need men for, exactly? People need people, because human beings are social animals who live in communities and build societies. But what does gender have to do with this need? There is nothing a man has to offer as a man that cannot be replaced by a dildo and a sperm bank . Traditional masculinity is obsolete. Men quite desperately need a revolution (similar to the one women have created for ourselves for the last hundred years) to redefine what role they play in society as men, what they have to offer as men. And what is so bad about saying that? It is simply true.
> and only to be used for their money
If all a man has to offer is money, is there anything wrong in accepting that bargain? It's quite literally his decision to offer it. If he does not offer it, he will not be used for it. I fail to see the problem.
> how it led to men hating women
... is this supposed to be an argument in favor of men, somehow? That they hate women? If the existence of feminism makes men hate women, isn't that an excellent justification for misandry?
> how what most women fail to understand is that men are wired differently, and that you can't want to claim to not need a man for anything and then expect a traditional relationship
What does the first part of this sentence have to do with the second? Is this guy trying to say that men are wired to GET ANGRY AND POUT LIKE A BABY unless women cater to their ego and pretend to need them..?
And is this man saying feminists want traditional relationships...?? It is so completely incoherent. If this is supposed to be this man's best argument for why men deserve better from women and/or feminists, wow, he's just justifying every single thing he's accusing feminists of.
> "If you even approach a woman these days or even just do something like look in their direction, you get labelled as a creep"
Yes, and? This is a problem because.....?? Let's say it's 100% true that men genuinely aren't allowed to ever approach women or look at women these days because the evil feminists decreed it so. Can this man please elaborate on why that's a bad thing? Is he so desperate to look at women even when they find his looks predatory? Is he desperate to ask women out even when they find it creepy?
> there's a dark side to feminism
Oooh it's almost as if everything has a shadow component and Jung was right and so is Taoism. Again, why is this so bad? Is it because this man thinks feminism is obligated to be the one thing in the whole universe that does not have a dark side?
> what about women hating other women
... what about it? No, really, what about it? What does he have to say about this? Does the fact that hypothetically there is a woman somewhere who hates another woman make it okay for him to hate a woman or three or fifteen? Like, where is he going with this??
posted by MiraK at 6:48 PM on November 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Allow me to play devil's advocate and ask what is wrong with any of this. What do women need men for, exactly? People need people, because human beings are social animals who live in communities and build societies. But what does gender have to do with this need? There is nothing a man has to offer as a man that cannot be replaced by a dildo and a sperm bank . Traditional masculinity is obsolete. Men quite desperately need a revolution (similar to the one women have created for ourselves for the last hundred years) to redefine what role they play in society as men, what they have to offer as men. And what is so bad about saying that? It is simply true.
> and only to be used for their money
If all a man has to offer is money, is there anything wrong in accepting that bargain? It's quite literally his decision to offer it. If he does not offer it, he will not be used for it. I fail to see the problem.
> how it led to men hating women
... is this supposed to be an argument in favor of men, somehow? That they hate women? If the existence of feminism makes men hate women, isn't that an excellent justification for misandry?
> how what most women fail to understand is that men are wired differently, and that you can't want to claim to not need a man for anything and then expect a traditional relationship
What does the first part of this sentence have to do with the second? Is this guy trying to say that men are wired to GET ANGRY AND POUT LIKE A BABY unless women cater to their ego and pretend to need them..?
And is this man saying feminists want traditional relationships...?? It is so completely incoherent. If this is supposed to be this man's best argument for why men deserve better from women and/or feminists, wow, he's just justifying every single thing he's accusing feminists of.
> "If you even approach a woman these days or even just do something like look in their direction, you get labelled as a creep"
Yes, and? This is a problem because.....?? Let's say it's 100% true that men genuinely aren't allowed to ever approach women or look at women these days because the evil feminists decreed it so. Can this man please elaborate on why that's a bad thing? Is he so desperate to look at women even when they find his looks predatory? Is he desperate to ask women out even when they find it creepy?
> there's a dark side to feminism
Oooh it's almost as if everything has a shadow component and Jung was right and so is Taoism. Again, why is this so bad? Is it because this man thinks feminism is obligated to be the one thing in the whole universe that does not have a dark side?
> what about women hating other women
... what about it? No, really, what about it? What does he have to say about this? Does the fact that hypothetically there is a woman somewhere who hates another woman make it okay for him to hate a woman or three or fifteen? Like, where is he going with this??
posted by MiraK at 6:48 PM on November 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Oh yeah, another cultural message men and boys get is "other people have it harder, so toughen up and don't talk about things that bother you -- no one cares."
Maybe don't talk about these things with the people who DO have it harder? Definitely don't talk about them with men's rights activists. But do talk about them with other men who are trying to figure out a new place in the world where their masculinity doesn't project toxicity.
posted by rikschell at 7:01 AM on November 16, 2023
Maybe don't talk about these things with the people who DO have it harder? Definitely don't talk about them with men's rights activists. But do talk about them with other men who are trying to figure out a new place in the world where their masculinity doesn't project toxicity.
posted by rikschell at 7:01 AM on November 16, 2023
I would think that a metafilter post asking for positive and negative experiences of feminism, and double standards, would be a decent place to talk about casual misandry and the cultural messaging experienced by boys.
posted by alexei at 5:48 AM on November 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by alexei at 5:48 AM on November 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
would be a decent place to talk about casual misandry and the cultural messaging experienced by boys.
Absolutely. Boys and men can and should create support structure within their own populations, just as women, queer folks, disabled folks, POC, and every other group on the outs of the cultural hegemony have always had to do. All rikschell is saying is don't ask someone who's barely keeping their head above water to keep you afloat, too; reach out to the ones already on the high ground.
posted by phunniemee at 1:18 PM on November 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
Absolutely. Boys and men can and should create support structure within their own populations, just as women, queer folks, disabled folks, POC, and every other group on the outs of the cultural hegemony have always had to do. All rikschell is saying is don't ask someone who's barely keeping their head above water to keep you afloat, too; reach out to the ones already on the high ground.
posted by phunniemee at 1:18 PM on November 17, 2023 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
- Straw man (I have never heard women saying they don't need men for anything and that all men are useless and only to be used for their money. Like maybe somebody somewhere said this but it isn't a universal truth.).
- Men already hated women; that is literally what misogyny means.
- Straw man plus dubious pseudoscience (Men are socialized differently, but the jury is really still out on whether men are "wired" differently and in any case the women wanting a "traditional relationship" will be the first ones to buy into the idea that women and men are different in some meaningful way.)
- Hyperbole (and any man that thinks that is tipping their hand that they are kind of a creep)
- Inspecific. (Every sociopolitical movement has issues and in particular adherents with bad ideas. What does this actually mean?)
- Misogyny! It's not just for men anymore! And actually never was.
It sounds like the men you are talking to have characterized "feminism" as "everything I don't like about women" and/or "stuff that the one ex said that really pissed me off." In other words, they're not engaging with what feminism actually is, they're just airing grievances about their relationships (or lack thereof). I don't know that you need to try to engage about feminism when they're not. I would be inclined to say something like, "It sounds like you've had a really rough time out there in the dating world."
To answer your question more directly, due to feminism I can have my own bank account, my own home, a credit card, the ability to manage my fertility (for now!), the ability to leave a relationship that doesn't serve me, the ability to prioritize a career and be self-supporting.
posted by jeoc at 4:15 PM on November 11, 2023 [59 favorites]